Ted Grant

Blackpool, October 1972: LP conference—analysis and perspectives

The social and economic background to the Labour
Party conference this year, and its effects on the trade union and
Labour Party membership, illustrate the idea of Marx that “the
revolution sometimes needs the whip of the counter-revolution”. The
most reactionary Conservative government since the 1920s, possibly
this century, has expressed itself with savage attacks on the living
standards, trade union rights, social services and the skilled and
low paid sections of the workers. They have certainly observed the
injunction “to him that hath shall be given and to him that hath
not shall be taken away that which he hath” by taxing the poor and
giving to the rich in cutting surtax and income tax on higher incomes
and lavish subsidies to industry.

This
offensive has been generated by the crisis of British capitalism
which forced big business and their government to try and put the
burden on the working class. Two years of the policy of confrontation
with the unions has resulted in a strike wave, the biggest since the
general strike of 1926.

Whole
new layers of workers have been involved in strike action such as the
municipal workers and now the low-paid hospital workers. The workers
have been aroused and radicalised as they have not been for decades.
This was bound to be reflected in the trade union and labour
movement. The process of radicalisation had already begun even before
the Tory government had come to power. The election of left leaders
in the T&GWU, the AUEW and the NUM was an indication of
deep-going processes taking place in the active sections of the
labour movement.

This process has now shown itself clearly in the Labour Party conference.
It has shown the deep-going aspirations of the rank and file to
change society. The resolutions carried, against the recommendations
of the NEC, on nationalisation of the banks, insurance companies and
major monopolies with minimum compensation and for the reimbursing of
councillors who fall foul of the Housing Finance Act, was an
expression of the mood of the delegates in the trade unions and
Labour Party.

Left gestures

It
was also a reaction to the failures of the 1964-70 Labour government.
The active layers in the labour movement have understood that the
timid policies and capitulation to big business resulted in
ignominious defeat.

However the reactions are contradictory. Many of
the leaders have bowed to the mood of the rank and file and made left
gestures at the conference without intending them seriously. Even
Jenkins and other right wing leaders have begun to talk about
socialism as the need of the times.

The Programme for Britain
has been analysed in issue no. 124 of the Militant
so there is no need to repeat this here. But a glittering programme
of reform was set out by right winger Dennis Healey on behalf of the
NEC which could only be completed…in ten years!

The contradictory character of the conference was shown by the
resolutions and debate on the European Common Market. Despite the
fiery words of the majority of the NEC against entry—even before
the conference—Programme for Britain was
produced with sections taking membership of the Common Market for
granted and assumed as a basis for its calculations.

The resolution of the NEC and the speech of Wilson were intentionally
ambiguous.

The Tribune meeting, supposedly the high spot of the left at the conference
indicates the real weakness of the Tribune
tendency. Jones, Mikardo and Foot expressed indignation—correctly—at
the monstrous cruelty and callousness of the treatment of old age
pensioners in the miserable pittance given to them on which they have
to exist, but in 45 minutes of rhetoric by Michael Foot there was
never a word on the serious problem of challenging
the real power of big business.

Jones spoke of “finding the money” by taxing
the rich by a “wealth tax” and giving the money to pensioners and
improving the social services. He did not indicate, even if such a
programme were carried out, the inevitable effect on investment. From
the point of view of capitalism, Heath and his pirate crew are
correct in trying to get a favourable climate for investment by
concessions to big business and wealthy surtax payers.

Only the programme of planning involved in carrying out the resolution on
nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy could lay
the basis for a planned economy and undreamed of increases in living
standards for every section of the working class.

But Jack Jones, one of the more militant of the union leaders, and
Michael Foot, the avowed leader of the Tribune
left obviously regarded the resolution as a harmless gesture to be
ignored immediately it was passed.

They still have illusions, despite the experience
of the past ten years, and especially the last two years, that a
radical programme of reform is compatible with the continued
existence of capitalism.

This is sowing the seeds of a terrible conflict in
the Labour Party with the accession to power of the next Labour
government. The attempted reconciliation with the extreme right wing,
the rump of the Gaitskell-Jenkins tendency, which is still well
represented in the Parliamentary party but pitifully weak in the
constituencies, with pleas for “unity” shows the lack of
perspective and the illusions of the left.

This is stoking up unpleasant surprises for them as the right wing bides
its time for revenge. This will come when the right begins to reflect
the pressures of big business and the mass media as a capitalist
Trojan horse within the Parliamentary party.

At
this stage the mass of the party has enormous illusions in the left
leaders and they in turn have illusions in their capacity to “manage
the capitalist economy”. These illusions are reinforced by the fact
that Heath has borrowed most of the economic measures or methods of
the last Labour government in a desperate attempt to solve the
organic crisis of British capitalism.

The fact that they are not
working and did not work under the Labour government makes no
impression on them. There are none so blind as those that will not
see. They dream they will do better next time with the same methods
that led to the collapse.

Nevertheless,
despite the incorrigible sectarians of the ultra-left grouplets
outside the movement, vital processes of change are taking place in
the labour movement. These sectarians are the other side of the medal
of the Tribune
tendency. They have not the remotest understanding of the way the
labour movement develops and learns through experience. The rank and
file of the trade unions and the Labour Party have moved
overwhelmingly to the left in their attitudes and aspirations.

The changed situation can be seen if we compare this conference to the
conferences of ten years ago. Then the right wing dominated the trade
unions and the Labour Party. It was only a decade or so ago that
Gaitskell tried to turn the Labour Party into a revamped version of
the old Liberal Party when the trade unions were appendages to it. He
wished to drop even the formal goal of socialism. Even in that period
of reaction this was defeated by the active members of the
constituencies and trade unions.

The real change is indicated by the attitude of Nye Bevan who, at a
Tribune
meeting at the Labour conference in Brighton, repudiated the speech
of the then NUPE general secretary calling for a programme of
nationalisation of the banks, insurance companies and monopolies, on
the same lines as the resolution passed at this year’s conference.
He was appalled at the extremist demands of “this wild man of the
unions”, which showed, he said, that Tribune
were not “wild men of the left”.

Transformation of party

Many
constituency parties were turned into a shell when the right wing had
control. This reflected the apathy and indifference of the mass of
the workers in that period. Today, of course, many constituency
organisations are not in much better shape. But a large section,
perhaps the majority are beginning to put on new life and be revived
as working class organisations.

This conference marks a step in the transformation of the labour movement.
The same process of change to the left that is taking place in the
unions is also taking [place] in the Labour Party.

The experience of the impotence of the Labour government of 1964-1970 to
change society or enact a radical programme of reform has had a
profound effect on the consciousness of the active layers of the
trade union and labour movement. They are trying to assimilate the
lessons. Hence the support for what amounts to a revolutionary
transformation of society in the nationalisation resolution.

At the same time it acts as a warning by the leaders of the giant unions
that the Parliamentary Party must “do something next time to
deliver the goods.”

The attitude of the conference was shown by the attitude taken to the
Labour Party Young Socialists. For the first time, at least since the
war, they are to have a representative on the national executive
committee of the Labour Party. This resolution was passed
overwhelmingly. It is an indication of the mood.

However the complacency of the Tribune
left was expressed in the Tribune
meeting. They seemed to think that in the euphoria of left victory
the problems facing the labour movement would be easily surmounted.
In reality the problems are only now beginning to be posed seriously
in the labour movement.

Class conflict in [the] party

There is the problem of conference decisions and
the binding of the Parliamentary Labour Party to carry them out.
Clearly the Parliamentary Party does not consider itself bound by
conference decisions, or even by the decisions of the NEC. This poses
the inevitability of collision between them under the next Labour
government, which will be buffeted by the insoluble crisis, which is
inevitable on a capitalist basis, exacerbating all the problems
facing Britain.

There is a class basis for
this conflict. A big section of the Parliamentary Party consists of
barristers, company directors and professional people who have not
the remotest conception of socialism or the real problems of the
working people. They were selected at a time when the class
consciousness in the constituencies was at a low ebb and mass
participation was lacking in the Labour Party and even the union
branches.

Consequently they are a survival of the Gaitskell era, which still hangs on. They
have not changed their attitude of class collaboration and of
condescending “do-goodism” towards the working class. Their
attitude is expressed by Jenkins’ denunciation of the “selfishness”
of the skilled workers, with never a word of condemnation of the
inequities of class society and the malevolent domination of the
economy by monopoly capitalism.

The coming conflict between the right and left with the advent of the
next Labour government as a reflection of the class struggle, finds
the “left” leadership completely unprepared. There is no worked
out programme for measures against capitalism. The ritual passing of
resolutions in reality does not commit the Parliamentary Party to
anything.

Barbara Castle, in speaking at the conference on the programme of state owned
industry spoke of nationalising only part of pharmaceuticals. If they
are not even now speaking of nationalising the whole
of the pharmaceutical industry, how can they be expected to tackle
the monopoly banks and monopoly insurance companies?

Reforms galore!

So much for the resolution passed at conference! Barbara Castle said in
her speech:

“the answer is control from the
inside; not by having a state monopoly, but by having a state owned
sector within the drugs industry. We are working out a plan for
public ownership within the pharmaceutical industry.”

Reforms galore, of course, were promised by lefts and rights, but when it
comes to carrying them out, that will be a different question. The
ruling class does not take this too seriously, with their experience
of Labour governments. The Labour leadership reversed their decisions
for reform, remaining within the framework of capitalism, under the
pressures of big business and capitalist reality.

Dennis Healey, the shadow chancellor, said that:

“if Labour did not get their policy
right on jobs and prices, the next time they were in power, they
would not be able to carry out the rest of their programme, there
would not be the money for it.”

He gave no indication, no more than the leadership, left and right, of
how they would solve the problem. In the Evening Standard
of Thursday October 5th,
there was an interesting article by John Lind, formerly of the
capitalist Institute of Economic and Social Research,
in which he deals with the crisis in Britain. He admits that
Keynesian methods have failed and that both the Conservative and the
coming Labour government have no policies to deal with the developing
capitalist crisis.

All the programmes of “soaking the rich” and the elaborate reforms
will fail because on a capitalist basis there will not be “the
money for it.”

Investment for profit

In
the debate in Parliament on the budget Conservative MP Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter in his last speech in the House provided the reason
for the failures of previous Labour governments and the fatal flaw in
the programme of reform on a capitalist basis when he said:

“Boards of directors who take the
actual decisions on how to invest their shareholder’s money will
not be lured into doing this—and ought not in their duty to their
shareholders to be lured into doing this—by all the investment
incentives in the world unless they have confidence that that
investment has a reasonable chance of bringing in a substantial
profit, a reasonable share of which profit their shareholders will
retain.”

The union leaders do not take these resolutions very seriously because
after these radical resolutions were passed they went back to the TUC
and the “practical” business of trying to collaborate with the
Heath government on a prices and incomes policy!

Carry out decisions!

However, even if they arrive at agreement, this will break down because it
will mean a cut in living standards for all the workers, whether low
paid and skilled. Under the pressure of the organised workers the
agreement will rapidly break down.

The passing of revolutionary resolutions has nevertheless left the
capitalists alarmed and uneasy. It has enormous implications for the
future. A campaign must be waged by the Marxist wing for all Labour
parties and trade unions to organise a campaign around the
resolutions passed at conference.

A campaign is required to explain the necessity of such measures in
order to guarantee full employment and decent standards for all. At
the same time a campaign must be waged to bind the Parliamentary
Party and the NEC to carry out conference decisions.

This will be one of the main lessons within the next Labour government.
The demand to carry out conference decisions will gain enormous
support in the unions and Labour parties. But
the question is, who decides? the remote Parliamentary Party or the
party conference based on the grass roots?
This will become a burning issue.

Under the blows of the capitalist reaction, of the
mass media and the obscene racialist ranting, the organised workers
in the labour movement will come to understand the need for the
Marxist method, Marxist ideas and Marxist policies as the only
solution to the problems facing the labour movement.

[BOX:]

Socialist programme passed
at Labour Party conference

(32) This conference declares that the planned development of the
productive resources of society is the key to building a socialist
Britain.

Conference recognises that the gross inequalities of society, the disparity
between the regions, unemployment and poverty can only be removed
when the decisive sectors of the economy are taken into public
ownership. Conference calls upon the national executive committee to
formulate a socialist plan of production, based on the public
ownership, with minimum compensation, of the commanding heights of
the economy; such a programme to include the following measures:

(a) The re-nationalisation of all hived off sectors of publicly owned
industries, without compensation;

(b) an enabling bill to secure the public ownership of major monopolies;

(c) public ownership of land, building industry and finance houses;

(d) setting up of industrial enterprises in areas of high unemployment.

Conference, believing that such a programme can only succeed with the active
participation of trade unions and working people in general, calls
for a plan for the democratic control of industry through workers’
control and management.